User talk:Noren

Hello Noren, I just wanted to welcomeyou to to Wikipedia, and to say how much you input in Roche limit is appreciated. Here are a few links you might find useful.


 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you want add any images check out:


 * image use policy
 * How to keep image file sizes as small as possible

If you need any help try:


 * Help
 * Village pump

That's all for now. I hope you decide to stick around. We can always do with good people :-) Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second the welcome.

Could you provide a citation for the Aristotle reference in the Heliocentrism article? If you haven't time to work up a nicely formatted entry, I'd appreciate your sending me the data, and I can work it up. I'm trying to get together a proper References section. Thanks, Dandrake 19:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please pardon the brain fart. I woke up that morning thinking about the need to assemble a References section, and apparently hadn't achieved enough consciousness by 11 AM to look at the article first. Thanks for the work on the article. Dandrake 22:08, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Roche limit
(William M. Connolley 22:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Please will you pause to think before labelling my edit as "vandalism". First, it was a good-faith edit. Second, it was correct: orbit or not is irrelevant to the tidal forces.

Cluster Impact Fusion
Go for it! Just because there's only a small amount of material on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be in here. Moreover I'm sure you can I can get a nice boilerplate into shape, and then get Art to jump in.

Good? Yes?

ok, here, see what you think cluster impact fusion

Maury 6 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Cold Fusion
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I did discuss them first, extensively, months ago. Perhaps I should have reiterated the arguments.  I'd be happy to take this to arbitration, as in my opinion the categories under dispute are clear and obvious violations of the Wikipedia category use guidelines.  In any case, I did not violate the 3RR rule as I did not "revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."  I only did so twice (at 16:18, 11 July 2005 and 17:41, 11 July 2005)- two times fewer than what would needed for me to be in violation.
 * Well, I'd say you reverted three times; adding an extra edit in between your revert still makes it a revert. I wasn't reporting you or anything, just wanted to let you know that continued reverts could result in bannination. I noticed brian had made reverts also, but I saw this comment and from it I inferred that he was not going to revert it again.
 * I'm guessing you were counting my initial edit as a revert, though you didn't specify what edit other than the two I cite above you consider a revert... but as you say it's a dead issue.

Talk:Cold fusion
I've reported the noxious SPAM sites to the blacklist and they should be added (I hope). 68.39.174.238 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

source for cold fusion ?
Noren, could you provide the source for "most governments and scientists in the United States and Europe had dismissed the concept as illusion" ? you put it between quotes, so I suppose you are quoting someone. thanks. Pcarbonn 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Block
I am sorry about the block; I meant to block an IP address of a spammer, and blocked you instead. - Mike Rosoft 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on Grape
Hi. Good catch on your revert on Grape. :) I was trying to help and someone caught my own revert which was only partial.  Cheers!  --EarthPerson 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Roche limit FAR
Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Cold fusion mediation
You are named as a party at Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. Please either agree to mediation, or strike your name from the list of parties. MigFP (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion
I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I've done a lot of copyediting on the article, I'm largely happy with the results of the mediation, and the editors who have responded seem happy. I'm checking with you and Guy because neither of you checked in during the GA debate (understandable after the long mediation), so I had some concern that your position was not well-represented. I represented a counterweight to some extent to Pierre (Pcarbonn).

I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, and I want to know if you and Guy think that this is too strong or too provocative:


 * Finally, to chemists and physicists who might say that it's pointless to represent the points of view of the cold fusion proponents: the Chubb and Van Noorden references show sessions on these topics at recent ACS and APS yearly meetings, the 2004 DOE review was equivocal, DARPA and the Indian government are currently funding studies, and one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan (Arata) just gave a live demonstration of his excess heat experiment in the hall named in his honor to the Japanese press.  Wikipedia can't take a position that you're not willing to take; as long as chemists and physicists keep the subject alive and unresolved, Wikipedia must do so as well. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot should automatically stamp the RFC page with the Cold Fusion topic, right? I'm not 100% sure on how to submit it for RFC, but I thought that I was doing the right way. You could use a little more good faith Noren, and not accuse me of reverting edits with a blanket statement of merely deleting with an invalid purpose. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I snapped at you. I've been under a lot of stress lately. Yes, I disagree that my edit summary was incorrect but I had assumed that a bot would have fleshed out the RFC page after a tag was applied on the Cold Fusion talk page. I was wrong about the process and will review it further for the next time. Thanks, seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Eleassar my talk 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Fist
Wow, uh... I swear to God, I had no idea how that happened. I went back and looked at the page history, and that's not at all what I was trying to do. :\ Must have been some kind of page glitch. I'm going to try, again, to do what I was really attempting, and thanks for bringing that to my attention! 67.162.108.96 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it... man, that was weird! 67.162.108.96 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

SL9
Hi Noren. A few of us have been working away on Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. I added a few new references today and I also posted four "citation needed" requests for unsourced paragraphs. Perhaps you can help with those? You'll notice two in the 'Impacts' section and one each in 'Chemical studies' and 'Post-impact analysis.' If these are done I think it will be up to current FA standards as far as referencing goes. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Marskell, it's good to hear that you think it's close and I'm glad you've taken an active interest in improving the article. I've not had as much time to work on it as I'd like lately, but I'll try to do more.  --Noren (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Phan Xich Long
Hello Noren. I have tried to address your concerns. Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp
Hello again Noren. I have nominated this comet at the FA review, here. As you helped with Shoemaker-Levy, I thought you might be interested. I can work on it some but can't bring it back to standard alone. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban
Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Administrators%27_noticeboard. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CF Images and Copyright
Noren: I am clueless about Wikipedia and need help. It was inappropriate for me to upload this image. I have tried to delete it from the cold fusion page but somebody put it back. Can you please help me to permanently delete the image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SSC-LENR-CR39Overlay.jpg 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I'm not really an expert in this area, but I believe the issue comes down to copyright. As I understand it, that picture was made by US government employee(s) in the course of their employment, and therefore is in the public domain by law.  I don't believe that the fact that you were the one who uploaded it enters into consideration, as you had no creative input into it.  However, I am not a lawyer and that's just my impression of the situation, for whatever it is worth.
 * This is in contrast to this photo, which you removed from the page at the same time. In that case I believe you do have copyright rights as the photographer, which is why your decision to revoke copyright was honored. Again, that's just my humble non-expert opinion. --Noren (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the right of a contributor to revoke a permission; my understanding was that the license granted by upload isn't revocable, and others may have again used the image, properly, under the license (and that image has indeed been copied elsewhere). But I don't know policy on this. In this case, Krivit is understandably miffed by the blacklisting, improper in my opinion, of his publication, New Energy Times (newenergytimes.com) and seems to be reacting rather strongly. Some of us, with some administrative support, have been moving slowly and cautiously to undo the damage from some recent actions that seem to be promoting an anti-fringe agenda, but to do this without disruption takes time. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know StevenBKrivit's motivations and I don't think it's appropriate to speculate. Looking through his edits I see no reference to his acting because of being 'miffed'- all of his recent edits have been quite civil and this question is written in a calm tone.  I don't think it's helpful for you to label his actions in this way.  I also feel the need to point out that your description of your own intentions seems to be rather WP:soapy.  It would be better to focus on content of pages rather than editing with a purpose to fight what you perceive as 'actions that seem to be promoting an anti-fringe agenda'.  --Noren (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I do know his motivations? Perhaps I know a lot more about them than would be visible in his edits here? Perhaps I'm not "speculating"? Perhaps I treated you as a human being who would be interested in the human story? In any case, his motivations are moot, that was just dicta, and he could be as miffed as he likes, or not, my comment was simply one of human understanding and, indeed, sympathy. My question was about his right to delete images being used in articles, after he'd granted permission. I don't think the grant of copyright made with the upload can be revoked. That was my question. Do you have an answer? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have an answer. Perhaps you missed my initial response, wherein I repeatedly indicated that I am not an expert on this topic and am not capable of answering this question with certainty. Perhaps in spite of this I tried to do what little I could to address the question directed at me in this location, where I wasn't expecting anyone expert on the topic to drop by to pick up the slack.  Perhaps you would meet with better success if you were to address this question to someone who has not repeatedly mentioned his lack of expertise on the topic.  Perhaps. --Noren (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Noren, sorry to bother you. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to explain yourself ...
Have we had a dispute that I don't recall? I see that you have accused me of being a Sock Puppet which is a decided unWP:CIV thing to do. I don't even know you for goodness sake.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that I am supposedly a Sock, with appropriate diffs. As I note at the checkuser request, I have nothing to hide. I have only ever made a single edit at Cold Fusion and my involvement on the talk page has been mostly tangential as it applied to procedural issues surrounding the purported topic WP:BAN of Rothwell. This makes me a Sock of some sort? --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moon
If you like moon things, I can strongly recommend Clint Mansell's soundtrack album for Moon (2009 film). It is quite excellent, as is the film. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ganymede (moon)
Tattletale: war was resolved peacefully days ago. I hope you enjoy your status as a Wiki-toolate tattletale. Katydidit (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A request
Hi, I just saw your post at the bottom of this thread. You give difs about the outside recruitments against WMC and I think others. As someone who is outside of this area trying to make sense of everything, I'd never seen that recruitment from the outside to bring editors in. I am talking about this post, "On the subject of off-wiki efforts it may be useful to (re)consider this evidence in reference to the off-wiki campaigning problem - in particular, consider this "How-To Guide"--Noren (talk) 8:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" I'm not sure but do you think it might be better to start a new thread to put this in so others who don't edit in the CC articles plus the arbitrators can take notice? I almost missed it myself and when I found it I was surprise about how blatant it was and also who was involved in the recruiting to bring editors into the project. I would do it myself but it's your posting and I don't move about others posts. I could write something myself, I know, but that would muddy things up since I had never seen it before so I don't want to confuse anyone, plus I already posted one new thread that got everyone worked up yesterday. I just think that this should be seen plus discussed if necessary. A discussion where you have it doesn't seem to be the right place to do it. Please consider this if you would. Thanks in advance and thank you for posting it as it makes things a lot clearer for me about the offsite stuff that I was trying to explain. Be well, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your warning on my talk page
Is it a personal attack to say someone is mistaken and harming the quality of the encyclopedia with their poor judgment based on reptile-brain emotional drives? If so, how can that be re-phrased more diplomatically? Ura Ursa (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

edit article "Cold Fusion" Nine References to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics. Wiki editors need to recognize that technical papers always have introductions that review prior work that pertains to the subject of the paper. This introduction to a paper is a secondary or tertiary source, not original work, that generally contains both pros & cons of the subject.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,
 * This Query is not the job of WP. If done by anyone, it would be considered original research, if published. Even if it were to be done, the questions asked are premature (perhaps by 5 years). Despite at least one PhD already issued for research on the topic, the questions are not appropriate at the present.


 * The W&L theory has little (or no) support among the experts in the field. It has too many major flaws that have been repeatedly mentioned. On the other hand, no CF theory has broad acceptance anywhere, so the subject would not be appropriate for teaching as a physics course.


 * Appropriate questions for the present could begin, "In the last decade have you read anything at all about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Cold Fusion, or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. If not, please ignore this questionnaire." "If yes, ..." Aqm2241 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?

Noren, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

hello
While I don't agree with your skepticism, reading your comments I think the cold fusion article would benefit if you kept an eye on the discussion.

One question, do you consider it useful to merge fringe sanctions into the pseudoscience sanctions?

While most sensible in your response, you talk about cold fusion as if it is pseudoscience?

I believe the arbitration pages to be confusing enough without such mergers.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page issue
Hi, Noren! I notice you have removed a section posted by me on talk:cold fusion about ad hominem attacks in the context of cold fusion. Is such an aspect not allowed to be discussed, and if sources available, to be mentioned in article in a form like :Cold fusion investigators consider a certain person a paid enemy of their field? Therefore I don't understand your reasons for removal of that section from that talk page. Could you detail a little about your reasons?--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There do exist circumstances under which negative material about a living person should be discussed in the talk page of an article, or included in articles themselves. The context in question was very far from an appropriate set of circumstances under which that should take place.   Such a claim should arise from the best sources concerning the topic itself; you appeared to be inventing a claim in order to attempt to discredit another editor.  Negative claims about a living person should be included only if very well sourced; you provided only innuendo and no source. Such material should be a natural part of the subject of the article in question; Shanahan is not even mentioned in the text of the cold fusion article at present, so mentioning the existence of slander about him with no other context to hang it on wouldn't even fit in with our current coverage of the cold fusion topic even if it were suitably sourced.  Your edit, timed as it was while he was actively posting to the talk page, appeared to be an attempt at a personal attack on another editor rather than an attempt to address the subject of the article. --Noren (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

War of 1812
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 some more
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theory/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bildungsroman
Noren I was rather surprised that you undid my capitalization on the Starship Troopers article. You say the lower case is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines regarding literary genres. Do you plan on going through the entire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsroman article and lowering the case? Mwehle (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I went ahead and did so. I'm not usually one to argue about MOS issues, but Starship Troopers is on my watch list and I've edited that part of the article in the past.--Noren (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's talk
You reverted my image additions here on the Hunter Biden page. On the licensing page, it states that "There are no known copyright restrictions on photographs by CQ and Roll Call staff photographers."

On the licensing page, they list "staff photographers identified so far", not all staff photographers. Thus, I would say the images I uploaded were public domain. The source for the images credits Bill Clark as a contributor for CQ-ROLL CALL, INC. Cheers,  Bremps  ...  17:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the image page you created the licensing block states, in bold text, "Do not use this license for photos with an unidentified photographer or a photographer that does not appear in the list of staff photographers identified by the Library of Congress." Your own contribution includes that template that tells you not to use it for that purpose. --Noren (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad. I'll delete them on Commons.  Bremps  ...  17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I liked that picture and was pondering swapping it for the current top picture, which is why I took a second look at the licensing.  There are few free to use options for him, alas. --Noren (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its pretty surprising how some public figures have so few free images. The image for Jay-Z is from 2011.  Bremps  ...  20:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)